Bonus points "wouldn't have changed any results" in the Six Nations

In a recent Irish newspaper article, the vexed question of whether bonus points should be used in the Six Nations was raised again.

The article carried a revised 6N table for 2012 with bonus points showing that not much difference would be made, with Wales and France leading the way. Bonus points don’t make a difference was the summation.

It’s a point echoed by 6 Nations Chief Executive John Feehan who has said in the past that, they had looked at the bonus points, and the difference they might have made:

"What we have in place works, so why would you mess with it?" John Feehan has asked. "We have looked at a bonus-point structure and applied it retrospectively, but it wouldn't have changed any results over the last 10 years or so. One third place might have been a fourth place, but there would have been nothing of real consequence.”

This dismissive comment by Feehan takes into account bonus points, but ignores the other qualifiers that are also used in other comps to decide teams finishing on equal points.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is the cry of the 6 Nations traditionalists, yet it’s worthwhile remembering that a decision was taken some years ago to change the tie situation so that Six Championships would no longer be shared.

Points difference was introduced as a decider, a decision that has had a bearing on a couple of 6N seasons for Ireland – losing out to England and France on a number of occasions. One could argue that if points scored/conceded are being used as a decider in an increasingly tight competition that has a dropping try count, then bonus points are linked to that and are a more equitable way of rewarding teams' endeavours over the series of five matches, rather than benefiting from one blowout, for example, Ireland’s recent victory over Italy.

In other comps, points difference is not the next decider if teams finish equal. Results between the two teams, tries scored, tries conceded often are used before the total points difference tally. What if these were also applied?

However, rather than use this article solely to argue for their introduction, which has been done a number of times before, I thought it would be useful to look at how much bonus points would have impacted on previous seasons in the 6N only, and if John Feehan’s assertion that “one third place might have been a fourth but nothing of real consequence” really stands up.

A comparison of the tables for some years tells a slightly different story.

2000*

A bonus point table using head to head would give:

Team W D L Tries T B L B PD Points
England 4 0 1 20 3 1 +113 20
Ireland 3 0 2 17 2 1 +35 15
France 3 0 2 12 1 2 +48 15
Wales 3 0 2 8 1 13
Italy 1 0 4 9 -50 4
Scotland 1 0 4 9 -122 4

England still clear winners. Using head to head and/or tries scored, Ireland would have finished second. Italy would move up one.

2001*

Foot and Mouth year. Both Ireland and England going for a Grand Slam.
The bonus point version wouldn’t change the winner, but make it more clear-cut since Ireland beat England in the final match. Wales would pip Scotland on tries scored and move up one.

Team W D L Tries TB L B PD Points
England 4 0 1 29 4 1 +149 21
Ireland 4 0 1 11 1 +40 17
Wales 2 1 2 10 1 -41 11
Scotland 2 1 2 8 1 -24 11
France 2 0 3 9 1 9
Italy 0 0 5 8 1 1

2002**

A Grand Slam for France despite being third in the try stakes. Despite France winning all their games, they would have lost the 6N if this was decided on points difference. Head-to-head, they would win. Tries scored they would lose. Would this be the appalling vista, if bonus points were introduced - Grand slam victors not being the champions?

Team W D L Tries TB LB PD Points
England 4 0 1 23 4 1 +131 21
France 5 0 0 15 1 +81 21
Ireland 3 0 2 16 2 +7 14
Scotland 2 0 3 6 8
Wales 1 0 4 11 1 2 7
Italy 0 0 5 4 0


2007**

France – again. Nicking it from Ireland on the last day in the last match with the last score in the last second. On points difference. They won the head-to-head but scored less tries overall. The bonus point version would have seen Girvan Dempsey’s 4th try in Ireland’s final match give them the bonus point to win the championship, no matter the outcomes of the other games. Wales’ loss to Scotland would give them the wooden spoon on a head to head qualifier.

Team W D L Tries TB LB PD Points
Ireland 4 0 1 17 2 1 +65 19
France 4 0 1 15 2 +69 18
England 3 0 2 10 1 +4 13
Italy RU 2 0 3 9 1 -53 9
Scotland 1 0 4 7 1 5
Wales 1 0 4 7 1 5



2008*

Wales win their second Grand Slam and top the much reduced try-scoring stakes, as defences tightened up. Bonus points only reinforce the Welsh victory. However, Italy move up one, if head to head is used first.

Team W D L Tries TB LB PD Points
Wales 5 0 1 13 1 +82 21
England 3 0 2 8 3 +25 15
France 3 0 2 11 +10 12
Ireland 2 0 3 9 1 2 -6 11
Italy RU 1 0 4 6 1 -57 5
Scotland 1 0 4 3 1 -54 5


2009*

Ireland finally manage a Grand Slam in the 6N in one of the most closely fought championships, with the last kick of the last match deciding winner and other placings. They were third in the try stakes and second on points difference. The bonus point version would have still seen Wales and Ireland teams heading into the final weekend to fight it out for the Championship. Wales head to head with England would have given them second spot.

Team W D L Tries TB LB PD Points
Ireland 5 0 0 12 1 +48 21
Wales 3 0 2 8 1 2 +19 15
England 3 0 2 16 2 1 +54 15
France 3 0 2 14 1 +23 13
Scotland 1 0 4 4 1 5
Italy RU 0 0 5 2 1 1


So a couple of Italian Wooden spoons might change hands, some 2nd, 3rd and 4th placings too.

And a couple of Championships in 2002 and 2007 for England and Ireland.

No real difference there then.

The point is not surely if the table would look different if there were bonus points applied to the games as they were played, but how different the games played might have been if there were bonus points.

For instance, England may not have played conservatively for the win in the first two and may have chased bonus points.

Exactly... poor summary of the analysis- retrospectively applying bonus points over past years defeats the purpose of the bonus points themselves which are to alter the position of a team by scoring tries, ensuring close finishes.

Although I did see a Welsh poster here recently who had painstakingly gone back through history awarding various different values to a try and then trying to use it to justify a proposition of 100 years of Welsh dominance scuttled by unfortunate point scoring system

Creative, and clearly a lot of work this sort of thing, but utterly missing the point.

Then they might have come across the 1959 Lions loss where Don Clarke kicked 6 penalties against the Lions 4 tries to win 18-17...now thats truly criminal!

I didn't say he was insisting on the same different values of tries across history. It seemed to vary from game to game wildly...

Imagine in 1994, a try was worth 54 points and a drop goal was worth -5. Wales would clearly have been rewarded with a victory on the day...

And so on. Nothing wrong with winning on penalties...probably means the opposition were cheating to keep the try line in tact.

miteyironpaw wrote:The point is not surely if the table would look different if there were bonus points applied to the games as they were played, but how different the games played might have been if there were bonus points.

For instance, England may not have played conservatively for the win in the first two and may have chased bonus points.

The wise thing to do is to chase points anyway... game points that is. All sides should be aware that when a Championship comes down to points...the ones you've amassed on the scoreboard become important. Ireland have kicked themselves for the attitude that playing conservatively wins championships...even without the bonus point system

I say there is already strong enough inducement to go for wins - obviously - but also gaming points. But meanwhile, no bonus points system should have a solution whereby a side that has won less games than another side could win a Championship. I think that is considered a theoretical possibility if bonus points were introduced to 6N.

True Fly...you'd really need a knockout round. Bonus points are really more suited to longer competitions. The 3N face this already but it still comes down to a points differential.

The point I was attempting to make was to test Mr Feehan's reasoning about how they considered bonus points and that they had applied them retrospectively to see if they made any difference. He asserted they hadn't.

I agree entirely that it's a theoretical exercise in that if bonus points were present in a comp they would have a bearing from round one.

There really shouldn't be any need for extra motivation in the 6N. It's the pinnacle of a player's season, sometimes career. In a longer league, perhaps where there are chances for mid table teams to get into top 4 play offs, then bonus points are great incentives not to give up. Without BPs and LBPs in the league, mid table sides could essentially give up and coast in safe that they won't be relegated, but with no chance of winning. However, in international rugby players may never get a shot again to represent their country, not like with a club contract, and so they should be going all out to win and score tries without the need for an extra bonus point for the trouble.

SecretFly wrote:. But meanwhile, no bonus points system should have a solution whereby a side that has won less games than another side could win a Championship. I think that is considered a theoretical possibility if bonus points were introduced to 6N.

Indeed. See 2002 table above.

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:. But meanwhile, no bonus points system should have a solution whereby a side that has won less games than another side could win a Championship. I think that is considered a theoretical possibility if bonus points were introduced to 6N.

Indeed. See 2002 table above.

Sorry, I didn't get round to reading that first time. I knew it was a theory and now it's a fact

Grand slam with no tbp = 20 points

4 wins with bonus points and a losing bonus point in game 5 = 21 points

Therefore can't have it. Sorry.

It's all...................... bull anyway. I've seen a lot of dreadful games in the Six Nations...and games where one side implodes and can't get back into the game. But I don't think I've seen any game where one side "gives up" or "stops playing" because there is no incentive to go on.

It's a nice excuse and it was a nice excuse that Parisse, a proud man, used in the aftermath of the Ireland game. Tuth was the stuffing was knocked out of them in the second half. The incentive still remains for any side to keep playing to make the winning margin less and help solidify confidence for the next game.

There always IS incentive to play on. But if you can't get a foothold in a game, bonus point options won't improve your ability any.

i dont really get the point of saying if it would change the result after the event!! its more about the fact that it could change the way teams play, therefore may have changed the actuall outcomes in the games played!!

teams play to the rules in front of them!! no point trying to manipulate previous resluts with different scoring systems!!

mystiroakey wrote:i dont really get the point of saying if it would change the result after the event!! its more about the fact that it could change the way teams play, therefore may have changed the actuall outcomes in the games played!!

teams play to the rules in front of them!! no point trying to manipulate previous resluts with different scoring systems!!

Yes, we got that point already!! It's being made twice so far!! You've just managed to repeat what someone else posted earlier!! Except you added in double exclamation marks for some reason - I don't know why!!

Pot Hale wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i dont really get the point of saying if it would change the result after the event!! its more about the fact that it could change the way teams play, therefore may have changed the actuall outcomes in the games played!!

teams play to the rules in front of them!! no point trying to manipulate previous resluts with different scoring systems!!

Yes, we got that point already!! It's being made twice so far!! You've just managed to repeat what someone else posted earlier!! Except you added in double exclamation marks for some reason - I don't know why!!

lol what is your problem , i have no idea why you posted that ! what sort of argument do you want!!!!!!

Well when you say "I don't really get the point of saying if it would change the result after the event!!" - to whom or what are you referring?

Because no one made that point.

what is your problem?

its a waste of time- working out how bonus points would change history- because teams would play differently if the rules were different!!

can you not understand what a waste of time your thread is- is that why you are getting so defensive!!

if 2 people mentioned what i mentioned doesnt that just proove the point even more- sorry if i didnt read the replies before i posted- lol!!

miteyironpaw wrote:The point is not surely if the table would look different if there were bonus points applied to the games as they were played, but how different the games played might have been if there were bonus points.

For instance, England may not have played conservatively for the win in the first two and may have chased bonus points.

Right yep Englands try scoring machine wouldve pushed for that 4th touchdown in the scotland game.
Yeah absolutely

The only way a bonus point system would be fair is if they had a home and away fixture.

Cymroglan wrote:The only way a bonus point system would be fair is if they had a home and away fixture.

And if Italy promised to try in all their games for 80 minutes

Surely there is far more incentive for teams to keep playing when bonus points DON'T exist.

A team vying for the championship may stop playing once they've secured their try bonus, whereas they may still keep trying for more points knowing they might be crucial in the shakeup.

Similarly a team may be well beaten with no chance of a LBP, but will keep playing to help their points difference.

There is zero evidence to suggest it would do anything to help the 6N and fairly obvious objections that it would be grossly unfair.